Advertisement

Machine Agency in Human-Machine Networks; Impacts and Trust Implications

  • Vegard EngenEmail author
  • J. Brian Pickering
  • Paul Walland
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9733)

Abstract

We live in an emerging hyper-connected era in which people are in contact and interacting with an increasing number of other people and devices. Increasingly, modern IT systems form networks of humans and machines that interact with one another. As machines take a more active role in such networks, they exert an increasing level of influence on other participants. We review the existing literature on agency and propose a definition of agency that is practical for describing the capabilities and impact human and machine actors may have in a human-machine network. On this basis, we discuss and demonstrate the impact and trust implications for machine actors in human-machine networks for emergency decision support, healthcare and future smart homes. We maintain that machine agency not only facilitates human to machine trust, but also interpersonal trust; and that trust must develop to be able to seize the full potential of future technology.

Keywords

General: HCI methods and theories Human-machine networks Agency Trust 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been conducted as part of the HUMANE project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 645043.

References

  1. 1.
    Law, J.: Notes on the theory of the actor-network: ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Syst. Pract. 5, 379–393 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rose, J., Jones, M.: The double dance of agency: a socio-theoretic account of how machines and humans interact. Syst. Signs Actions 1, 19–37 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jia, H., Wu, M., Jung, E., Shapiro, A., Sundar, S.S.: Balancing human agency and object agency: an end-user interview study of the internet of things. In: Proceedings of 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 1185–1188. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fogg, B.: Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. In: The SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing, pp. 225–232 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee, J.D., Moray, N.: Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35, 1243–1270 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, J.D., See, K.A.: Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 46, 50–80 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McEvily, B., Perrone, V., Zaheer, A.: Trust as an organizing principle. Organ. Sci. 14, 91–103 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eide, A.W., Pickering, J.B., Yasseri, T., Bravos, G., Følstad, A., Engen, V., Walland, P., Meyer, E.T., Tsvetkova, M.: Human-machine networks: towards a typology and profiling framework. In: HCI International. Springer, Toronto, Canada (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leonardi, P.M.: Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: what do these terms mean? How are they related? Do we need them? In: Leonardi, P.M., Nardi, B.A., Kallinikos, J. (eds.) Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World, pp. 25–48. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smart, P.R., Simperl, E., Shadbolt, N.: A taxonomic framework for social machines (2014). http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/362359/1/SOCIAMClassificationv2.pdf
  11. 11.
    Tsvetkova, M., Yasseri, T., Meyer, E.T., Pickering, J.B., Engen, V., Walland, P., Lüders, M., Følstad, A., Bravos, G.: Understanding human-machine networks: a cross-disciplinary survey. arXiv Prepr. (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bandura, A.: Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 1–26 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giddens, A.: The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, Berkeley (1984)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Friedman, B., Kahn, P.H.: Human agency and responsible computing: implications for computer system design. J. Syst. Softw. 17, 7–14 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rose, J., Truex, D.: Machine Agency as perceived autonomy: an action perspective. In: Baskerville, R., Stage, J., DeGross, J.I. (eds.) Organizational and Social Perspectives on Information Technology, pp. 371–388. Springer, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rose, J., Jones, M., Truex, D.: The problem of agency: how humans act, how machines act. In: International Workshop on Action in Language, Organisations and Information Systems (ALOIS-2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nass, C.I., Lombard, M., Henriksen, L., Steuer, J.: Anthropocentrism and computers. Behav. Inf. Technol. 14, 229–238 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bandura, A.: Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boshmaf, Y., Muslukhov, I., Beznosov, K., Ripeanu, M.: The socialbot network: when bots socialize for fame and money. p. 93 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chu, Z., Gianvecchio, S., Wang, H., Jajodia, S.: Who is tweeting on Twitter: human, bot, or cyborg? In: Proceedings of 26th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference - ACSAC 2010, p. 21 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    von Ahn, L., Maurer, B., McMillen, C., Abraham, D., Blum, M.: reCAPTCHA: human-based character recognition via web security measures. Science 321, 1465–1468 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Picard, R.W.: Affective Computing. MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 709–734 (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H.: An integrative model of organizational trust: past, present, and future. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32, 344–354 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nass, C., Moon, Y.: Machines and mindlessness: social responses to computers. J. Soc. Issues 56, 81–103 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    King, W.R., He, J.: A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 43, 740–755 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Corritore, C.L., Kracher, B., Wiedenbeck, S.: On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 58, 737–758 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wiegmann, D.A., Rich, A., Zhang, H.: Automated diagnostic aids: the effects of aid reliability on users’ trust and reliance. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2, 352–367 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dutton, W.H., Shepherd, A.: Trust in the internet as an experience technology (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scraton, P.: Policing with contempt: the degrading of truth and denial of justice in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster. J. Law Soc. 26, 273–297 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Taylor, S.P.: The Hillsborough stadium disaster: 15 April 1989: inquiry by the Rt Hon Lord Justice Taylor: final report: present to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty January 1990Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Drury, J., Reicher, S.: Collective action and psychological change: the emergence of new social identities. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 579–604 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nicholson, C.E., Roebuck, B.: The investigation of the Hillsborough disaster by the health and safety executive. Saf. Sci. 18, 249–259 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Donald, I., Canter, D.: Intentionality and fatality during the King’s Cross underground fire. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 22, 203–218 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Canter, D.V.: Fires and Human Behaviour. Wiley, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Drury, J., Cocking, C.: The Mass Psychology of Disasters and Emergency Evacuations: A Research Report and Implications for Practice. University of Sussex, Falmer (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pickering, J.B.: TRust in IT: Factors, metRics, Models. http://www.itutility.ac.uk/2014/10/30/trust-in-it-factors-metrics-models/
  38. 38.
    Information Commissioner’s Office: Key Definitions of the Data Protection Act (2015)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    European Commission: Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1995)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
    Howe, J.: The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired Mag. 14, 1–4 (2006)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Surowiecki, J.: The Wisdom of Crowds. Anchor, New York (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vegard Engen
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. Brian Pickering
    • 1
  • Paul Walland
    • 1
  1. 1.IT Innovation CentreSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations